This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

Originally Posted by jmotivator

Soooo, you are making essentially the anti-Gay-marriage argument against polygamy. Good try.

What "fraud" could a polygamist family perpetrate?

The problem isn't polygamist families. It is those who would use marriage to defraud the government and others, especially since this happens already with limiting people to only one spouse. We have a huge procedure, with a lot of already costly measures to check to ensure that when someone requests to gain citizenship for their foreign spouse, that there is no fraud involved in the case. Because there have been cases where people do this, and it is a very lucrative venture for them to do this if they are able to keep up the charade long enough to actually get through the process of being vetted and taken out of scrutiny. But if we simply knock down restrictions on how many spouses a person can have, this could cause huge issues in many areas, including immigration. What would prevent someone from marrying 20, 50, 100 people and applying for spousal citizenship for all of them? Even if all of them were eventually denied, our laws would require us to treat all of them the same as we would any other person looking to get citizenship for their spouse. With a limit, this type of fraud potential is limited as well as cost to society/government on investigating it, but without a limit on number of spouses, there is no limit on the fraud potential for these cases.

And this is just one of many areas where limiting fraud potential alone is a good idea and could easily be considered a legitimate state interest, for at the least not just striking down the bans.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

Originally Posted by roguenuke

The problem isn't polygamist families. It is those who would use marriage to defraud the government and others, especially since this happens already with limiting people to only one spouse. We have a huge procedure, with a lot of already costly measures to check to ensure that when someone requests to gain citizenship for their foreign spouse, that there is no fraud involved in the case. Because there have been cases where people do this, and it is a very lucrative venture for them to do this if they are able to keep up the charade long enough to actually get through the process of being vetted and taken out of scrutiny.

You have a point but recent changes in citizenship now simply require a birth to take place on US soil so marriage for citizenship can be skipped altogether. Yes some will use a multi-person marriage to defraud the government but some will not. That then opens an investigative procedure as well as a door for yet more bureaucracy to interfere in people's lives and it would be open a yes or no to a marriage based on the interviewers biases and interpretations. That's not a very consistent nor efficient methodology - unless of course the government would charge the couple for the interview, assessment and any appeals as well as tax approved polygamist marriages at a higher rate as a way of compensating those who slipped through the review process.

Originally Posted by roguenuke

But if we simply knock down restrictions on how many spouses a person can have, this could cause huge issues in many areas, including immigration. What would prevent someone from marrying 20, 50, 100 people and applying for spousal citizenship for all of them? Even if all of them were eventually denied, our laws would require us to treat all of them the same as we would any other person looking to get citizenship for their spouse. With a limit, this type of fraud potential is limited as well as cost to society/government on investigating it, but without a limit on number of spouses, there is no limit on the fraud potential for these cases.

A mass marriage will happen sooner rather than later... either the laws will have to be modified to accommodate or the restriction will be seen as yet another restriction of rights making some unequal in the case of the law.

Originally Posted by roguenuke

And this is just one of many areas where limiting fraud potential alone is a good idea and could easily be considered a legitimate state interest, for at the least not just striking down the bans.

It may be legitimate but not without state recourse to subvert the possible fraud potential. Changes in law, changes in society have to accommodate those with which the changes affect - the civil rights movement and equal opportunity actions of the 1960's and 1970's required laws both civilian and criminal to be modified in all states to be compliant to the changes in the federal laws. That would not change in this case either.

Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

Originally Posted by Ockham

You have a point but recent changes in citizenship now simply require a birth to take place on US soil so marriage for citizenship can be skipped altogether. Yes some will use a multi-person marriage to defraud the government but some will not. That then opens an investigative procedure as well as a door for yet more bureaucracy to interfere in people's lives and it would be open a yes or no to a marriage based on the interviewers biases and interpretations. That's not a very consistent nor efficient methodology - unless of course the government would charge the couple for the interview, assessment and any appeals as well as tax approved polygamist marriages at a higher rate as a way of compensating those who slipped through the review process.

A mass marriage will happen sooner rather than later... either the laws will have to be modified to accommodate or the restriction will be seen as yet another restriction of rights making some unequal in the case of the law.

It may be legitimate but not without state recourse to subvert the possible fraud potential. Changes in law, changes in society have to accommodate those with which the changes affect - the civil rights movement and equal opportunity actions of the 1960's and 1970's required laws both civilian and criminal to be modified in all states to be compliant to the changes in the federal laws. That would not change in this case either.

Quite the pandora's box that's been opened.

It hasn't been opened at all, so long as restrictions on numbers remain in place and there is nothing in the same sex marriage ruling that requires restrictions on numbers of spouses to be struck down.

People don't seem to understand that there is a difference between striking down restrictions in the law and removing them through other methods. I personally think these restrictions should slowly be removed, taking these things into account, so that having multiple spouses would still not cause "undue hardship" to the government, society, or our court system. Or even the spouses. Afterall, there is no protocol in place for whether or not a person taking on additional spouses would have to get permission from their existing spouses or tell any of their spouses about the other spouses. These are all things that would be argued by the state in the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS would take these things into consideration.

Honestly, does anyone really believe that the SCOTUS we currently have would strike down restrictions on polygamy, on number of spouses because of this? It just doesn't work like that, no matter what people think of the same sex marriage ban ruling.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

Originally Posted by sangha

Even in its' most benign form, it tends to create a situation where wealthy men get to marry a disproportionate share of the available women leaving many men unable to enjoy the benefits of marriage due to a lack of available partners which leads to a number of social ills, most notably prostitution

Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Why not just see where this goes? The people who are arguing hardest for it are social conservatives who do not want it but are angry with same-sex couples having the right. Are they going to make all the arguments for those who want polygamy until it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy?

The polygamists are inspired by the dissent to the ruling, that should tell you something. Justice Roberts makes it seem like there is no discussion or debate to be had on polygamy since same-sex couples were recognized to have the right to marry and his rhetoric sets this stage. If history will blame anyone for polygamy becoming legal, it will be him because he refused to acknowledge that there are significant differences between same-sex marriage and polygamy and that set the precedent for similarly simplistic thinking for other courts and political leaders.

Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

Originally Posted by Andalublue

I have no interest in whether they are or not. Not my battle. I know that neither have anything to do with SSM and can take no precedent from recent LGBT victories.

Actually the incest argument can, where as the pedophile, beastiality, and polygamy arguments cannot. Interracial, same sex and incest marriages all have in common a consenting adult wishing to marry another consenting adult. Indeed all three can be combined in some shape or form in any combination. Polygamy becomes a different argument because we are changing the number of participants. With pedophilia and beastiality, one of the participants is incapable, on a legal basis at least, to consent. Thus incest is the only form which can still ride on the coattail soft interracial and same sex marriages.

Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

Originally Posted by roguenuke

The problem isn't polygamist families. It is those who would use marriage to defraud the government and others, especially since this happens already with limiting people to only one spouse. We have a huge procedure, with a lot of already costly measures to check to ensure that when someone requests to gain citizenship for their foreign spouse, that there is no fraud involved in the case. Because there have been cases where people do this, and it is a very lucrative venture for them to do this if they are able to keep up the charade long enough to actually get through the process of being vetted and taken out of scrutiny. But if we simply knock down restrictions on how many spouses a person can have, this could cause huge issues in many areas, including immigration. What would prevent someone from marrying 20, 50, 100 people and applying for spousal citizenship for all of them? Even if all of them were eventually denied, our laws would require us to treat all of them the same as we would any other person looking to get citizenship for their spouse. With a limit, this type of fraud potential is limited as well as cost to society/government on investigating it, but without a limit on number of spouses, there is no limit on the fraud potential for these cases.

And this is just one of many areas where limiting fraud potential alone is a good idea and could easily be considered a legitimate state interest, for at the least not just striking down the bans.

Well, if there are two things we have been told we should not care about it is other people's marriages and illegal immigration. So it's touching to see people suddenly care about both, even if it is purely in a cynical, illogical and spinning way.

If the SCOTUS decision is to be adhered to there is nothing to stop people from entering into any manner of marriage because "Love Wins" don'tcha know.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

Re: Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

Originally Posted by jmotivator

So how long did you think about spinning that before you gave up?

Not long. It was just another example of the "mob rule" mentality which some people use, when it is convenient for them. When they are on the other side of the debate... the minority.... that is when the rights and liberties of the individual suddenly seem to matter.